From: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A minor correction in comment in heaptuple.c |
Date: | 2013-06-18 09:21:15 |
Message-ID: | 20130618052115.4c642841@imp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:01:28 +0200
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > /*
> > * return true if attnum is out of range according to the tupdesc
> > */
> > if (attnum > tupleDesc->natts)
> > return true;
>
> I think the comment is more meaningfull before the change since it
> tells us how nonexisting columns are interpreted.
I think that the comment is bad either way. Comments should explain
the code, not repeat it. The above is not far removed from...
return 5; /* return the number 5 */
How about "check if attnum is out of range according to the tupdesc"
instead?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 788 2246 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
IM: darcy(at)Vex(dot)Net, VOIP: sip:darcy(at)Vex(dot)Net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2013-06-18 09:25:59 | Re: Change authentication error message (patch) |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2013-06-18 09:06:35 | Re: A minor correction in comment in heaptuple.c |